State Department Casts First Rock In Reaction To Stoning In Iran
I thought I was going to be sick to my stomach this morning reading a CNN piece on the imminent stoning of Sakineh Mohammadie Ashtiani, a 42-year-old mother of two convicted in Iran of adultery.
They bury her up to her neck and toss stones big enough to hurt, but not kill immediately.
Okay, let's just put aside the idea of adultery as a crime, which is pretty hard to do, and look at these heinous perpetrations of injustice: Her "confession" was extracted by 99 searing lashes to her back. There were no witnesses to the "crime." And worse than that, she didn't even speak Farsi, but Turkish so she couldn't communicate with her court appointed representative.
But the part that really made me want to vomit was the State Department's reaction:
"...the State Department criticized the scheduled stoning, saying it raised serious concerns about human rights violations by the Iranian government.
"We have grave concerns that the punishment does not fit the alleged crime, " Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley said Thursday. "For a modern society such as Iran, we think this raises significant human rights concerns."
Human rights concerns?! Concerns?! WT*? Is this the most indignation we can muster from Obamastan? I'm sorry, I'm not usually given to hyperbole like that, but this is beyond the pale. How does this P.J. Crowley sleep at night after calling being buried alive and pommeled with hundreds of rocks for hours for a crime that isn't and probably didn't even happen a "human rights concern"?And more importantly, how could any self-respecting woman sleep with him? Iran a "modern society"? Doesn't commenting on the subject of stoning exclude them from that moniker? And what possible crime fits this punishment? Charles Manson is watching TV tonight.
Where is this man's manhood? Or should I ask where is the State Departments manhood. Someone tell me, was there a memo from the West Wing saying, "Hey, go easy on Iran. We can work with these dudes. Sure, they'll go Medieval on a couple hundred women, but hey, what cost peace." My feminist friends on the LEFT should be sickened by this. But they will still apologize for this inept administration. That also makes me sick!
- Comment (26)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: State Department Casts First Rock In Reaction To Stoning In Iran
"Significant concerns" are just one level gentler than "deep concerns" on the State Department Non-Response Scale. Expressing "deep concern" is the sort of ignorant thing the previous administration's Department of State would do! Thank goodness President Obama and his appointees don't overreact to a little harmless, old-fashioned barbarity!
...By which I mean, I'm with you on the nausea.
May '10
Re: State Department Casts First Rock In Reaction To Stoning In Iran
This is the same U.S. government that has apparently tasked NASA with improving relations with Muslims and is alright with one of our officials going on Al Jazeera. As Steyn often points out, Muslims sit highest on the pyramid of liberals' protected groups. They are beyond criticism.
May '10
Re: State Department Casts First Rock In Reaction To Stoning In Iran
While I understand that the State Department can't really do much except express their outrage, I am disappointed that they haven't done so in a much stronger way. I've written to my elected representative and the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs in the hope that they might do so on my behalf, at least.
It's disgusting to me to even think about a brutal execution like this one, while I support a return to good morals in society and a law & order government in principle, stoning is extreme in my opinion. I think the lashing would've been plenty of punishment for an offense like adultery.
May '10
Re: State Department Casts First Rock In Reaction To Stoning In Iran
This is outrageous! It's Soroya M. all over again. Where is her Freidoune Sahebjam?
"I think the lashing would've been plenty of punishment for an offense like adultery." Really, David926? I think adultery shouldn't be a punishable offense at all, because that type of thinking is totally absurd and deeply troubling. The only offense is against the spouse, and I think that there is insufficient evidence to prove that she even committed adultery. And how do we know that it was even consensual? Or even happened. After all, a woman's testimony is worth half a man's. Half. Let's all let that sink in for a minute as we contemplate what an a** backward country Iran is. And Little Miss It Takes A Village could make a holy stink if she wanted to. Maybe she might be able to get some use out of that nutcracker after all.
Thanks for sharing this story, Denise. I'm gonna bang my drum about this. Thank God I was born female in the United States of America.
May '10
Re: State Department Casts First Rock In Reaction To Stoning In Iran
Aaron, were you reading Michael Yon, too? :-)
May '10
Re: State Department Casts First Rock In Reaction To Stoning In Iran
This is where women pass up men in the department of rage and fury. Men get mad, but women's anger is engaged as an advocate for that victim and comes from somewhere deep and visceral. I still can't shake the horrible story last month of the Taliban hanging that little boy in front of his family as punishment to the grandfather for speaking out. It's appalling enough for our bureaucrats to not speak out vociferously and decry these atrocities against the innocent, but it is even more alarming and horrific when our own American Academy of Pediatrics suggests that a little clitoral nip on Muslim baby girls might be OK. I absolutely abhor the direction this administration is trying to take us.
May '10
Re: State Department Casts First Rock In Reaction To Stoning In Iran
Iranian jurisprudence is but one big non-sequitor. Somewhere, an Iranian juridical official had to conclude with "therefore, the defendant should be stoned to death." Well, what premise(s) could possibly allow such an inference?
I get the impression (unfortunately) that the lack of criticism of Islamic customs/legal principles by contemporary liberals derives in part from a crude association between Islam and repressed, brown-skinned people. Islam is seen as a religion of the poor and downtrodden, ergo its exempt from critical scrutiny.
May '10
Re: State Department Casts First Rock In Reaction To Stoning In Iran
I was just looking at the Big Peace website and was interested to note in one of the posts, a telling picture of faceless bodies in burqas looking like something out of a bad horror flick. Myself, I find the burka disconcerting (especially when faced with one) on a couple of levels and it's symbolic of the lack of social equality much less judicial equality that women in strict Islamic societies are dealt
But it's not just about a lack of status. It's about something far more visceral. It's about how a society deals with sexual sin and who is culpable in such situations.
Stoning is the logical consequence, it seems to me, when your entire social structure denigrates women to a mere body and little voice.
May '10
Re: State Department Casts First Rock In Reaction To Stoning In Iran
Perhaps the Obama Administration doesn't care that a woman is being stoned to death. Or just maybe there are American officials working as best they can through back channels to prevent this, and we're dialing down the public rhetoric because the kind of heated condemnation other commenters seem to want would make the Iranian regime less likely to back down.
As for the strange assertion by some commenters that liberals just don't care about sharia law and its treatment of women, all I can say is that's news to the National Organization for Women, which dedicated a session to the subject at their most recent conference, Amnesty International, which is organizing opposition to the present sentence in Iran, and The New York Times, whose news coverage of the subject is hardly neutral in tone.
Reading that "Muslims sit highest on the pyramid of liberals' protected groups," and about "the lack of criticism of Islamic customs/legal principles by contemporary liberals," you'd think that Amnesty, the group with the longest, most impressive track record on this subject, was run by a bunch of conservatives.
May '10
Re: State Department Casts First Rock In Reaction To Stoning In Iran
Conor Friedersdorf: ...As for the strange assertion by some commenters that liberals just don't care about sharia law and its treatment of women, all I can say is that's news to the National Organization for Women, which dedicated a session to the subject at their most recent conference,
The most despicable abuse of women, dwarfing anything imaginable in the West, and NOW bravely "dedicated a session to the subject?" Conor, that's the whole point: By merely devoting a session, they've created a moral equivalence between this barbarity and, say, "Sexist Auto Insurance," which was among the other dedicated sessions. Such barbarity deserves special status, no? In fact, day-to-day abuse of women in the mainstream Muslim world is far more severe than any of the issues discussed in these other sessions, but there's nary a word about that. All they can muster is "outrage" at the most extreme cases of fundamentalist Islam, and then only to put them on a par with "Sexual Violence in the Pews" (another).
It's tantamount to State's putting stoning on a par with the Arizona law, which it kinda just did with its squish language.
May '10
Re: State Department Casts First Rock In Reaction To Stoning In Iran
Exactly!!!
Scott Reusser
The most despicable abuse of women, dwarfing anything imaginable in the West, and NOW bravely "dedicated a session to the subject?" Conor, that's the whole point: By merely devoting a session, they've created a moral equivalence between this barbarity and, say, "Sexist Auto Insurance," which was among the other dedicated sessions. Such barbarity deserves special status, no? In fact, day-to-day abuse of women in the mainstream Muslim world is far more severe than any of the issues discussed in these other sessions, but there's nary a word about that. All they can muster is "outrage" at the most extreme cases of fundamentalist Islam, and then only to put them on a par with "Sexual Violence in the Pews" (another).
It's tantamount to State's putting stoning on a par with the Arizona law, which it kinda just did with its squish language. · Jul 6 at 5:36am
May '10
Re: State Department Casts First Rock In Reaction To Stoning In Iran
Scott Reusser The most despicable abuse of women, dwarfing anything imaginable in the West, and NOW bravely "dedicated a session to the subject?" Conor, that's the whole point: By merely devoting a session, they've created a moral equivalence between this barbarity and, say, "Sexist Auto Insurance," which was among the other dedicated sessions. Such barbarity deserves special status, no? In fact, day-to-day abuse of women in the mainstream Muslim world is far more severe than any of the issues discussed in these other sessions, but there's nary a word about that. All they can muster is "outrage" at the most extreme cases of fundamentalist Islam, and then only to put them on a par with "Sexual Violence in the Pews" (another).
It's tantamount to State's putting stoning on a par with the Arizona law, which it kinda just did with its squish language. · Jul 6 at 5:36am
Oh, Scott. I think I have a crush on you.
May '10
Re: State Department Casts First Rock In Reaction To Stoning In Iran
And Denise, I know I have a crush on you.
May '10
Re: State Department Casts First Rock In Reaction To Stoning In Iran
Scott, Andrea, Felicia:
The National Organization for Women focuses on domestic issues. But it dedicated a session to this international issue precisely because it's especially important. And it's unfair to act as though dedicating one session to the subject, and other sessions to other subjects, is tantamount to declaring them to be equivalent. Ricochet has a post about stoning adulterous women, and another up about reality television that has roughly the same number of comments. Does this mean Ricochet's writers, editors and commenters find these issues equally important? Of course not.
Rather than judging the depth of concern for these killings on the basis of extremity of rhetoric, why not figure out which organizations are actually doing something about the problem, and declare them the most concerned?
May '10
Re: State Department Casts First Rock In Reaction To Stoning In Iran
Kind of a false parallel there, Conor. Ricochet happily addresses a wide variety of issues, political and cultural, and it dishes out contempt or praise as it sees fit. NOW is focused exclusively on the problems facing women (as they deem them), and the single greatest cause of subjugation that women face world-wide is Islam. There is no close second. In addition, much of this subjugation exists right here in the States (e.g., Muslim men forbidding "their" women from feeling sunshine on their faces, de facto polygamy, genital mutilation, and even honor killings), so the "domestic-issue" focus you mention doesn't let NOW off the hook. For NOW to devote one single session, among dozens of others (many trivial), to Islam--and then only "radical" Islam--is obtuse in the extreme.
May '10
Re: State Department Casts First Rock In Reaction To Stoning In Iran
So I guess "Evil Empire" and "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" didn't do it for you, huh?
May '10
Re: State Department Casts First Rock In Reaction To Stoning In Iran
Matthew,
I liked both of those speeches in particular, and Ronald Reagan generally. I am not making a case against all stern rhetoric. I am merely observing that in this particular case, the back channel stuff is much more important (as it was during the Reagan Administration too).
It would be possible for the Obama Administration to put out a strident statement and do nothing behind the scenes... or to put out no statement and invest a lot of resources in saving this poor woman. We don't know what's actually going on, however, and making assumptions based on the rhetorical strength of what the State Department says for public consumption isn't a particularly reliable signal.
Conservative posturing on this issue obscures the fact that there is a broad cross-ideological consensus that women should not be stoned to death. And as I noted earlier, I cannot think of any group that does more good on this issue than Amnesty International.
Is there a conservative group I've neglected to mention that does comparable work?
May '10
Re: State Department Casts First Rock In Reaction To Stoning In Iran
Conor Friedersdorf: We don't know what's actually going on, however, and making assumptions based on the rhetorical strength of what the State Department says for public consumption isn't a particularly reliable signal.
Conservative posturing on this issue obscures the fact that there is a broad cross-ideological consensus that women should not be stoned to death. And as I noted earlier, I cannot think of any group that does more good on this issue than Amnesty International.
Is there a conservative group I've neglected to mention that does comparable work? · Jul 6 at 6:00pm
I'm not sure what you mean by "conservative group," but the U.S. military comes to mind. I wish the State Department did.
Conor, you'll have to excuse my utter lack of faith in outfits like Amnesty International. I don't mean to sound disrespectful or project my thoughts onto Sakineh Mohammadie Ashtiani, but if I were in her position I would be much more cheered by the appearance of an American Marine than anyone from AI.
May '10
Re: State Department Casts First Rock In Reaction To Stoning In Iran
Matthew Gilley
Conor, you'll have to excuse my utter lack of faith in outfits like Amnesty International. I don't mean to sound disrespectful or project my thoughts onto Sakineh Mohammadie Ashtiani, but if I were in her position I would be much more cheered by the appearance of an American Marine than anyone from AI. · Jul 6 at 6:18pm
Yes, I'd prefer the appearance of an American Marine too. In reality, however, Amnesty International is leading the effort to save her life, and the United States Marines, being unable to invade every country on earth that violates the rights of women, is utterly helpless.
As far as I can tell, the reality for actual Iranian women facing death sentences is that Amnesty International is doing far more than any other group -- including any conservative group -- to prevent the stoning, even as conservatives proclaim in blog posts that it is they who actually care about the issue. I don't doubt that folks on the right do care, but so do folks on the left, and from what I've seen the response from the left happens to be more effective on this particular issue.
Re: State Department Casts First Rock In Reaction To Stoning In Iran
A picture from what the State Department called a "modern society."
Sorry, I do not excuse the State Department's tepid response to potential stoning of Sakineh Mohammadi, behind the scenes dealing, or not. The only correct response was emphatic condemnation. But that flies in the face of cultural relativism, the left's mantra. And that's where the State Dept. lives.
Incidentally, Planet Iran features articles on grassroots organizations working within Iran to end stoning and improve women's rights. (Malaysia, Algeria, Tunsania have already outlawed stoning. Could modernity be ahead?) Let's send NOW over there to do some good work, instead of being mad that waitresses make less than coal miners. Of course that would require them to admit that women in free market, Judeo-Christian societies have it pretty sweet. But then where would you be?